Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date.
Orissa High Court confirms the jurisdiction of the search and seizure authority to pass an order of demand and penalty under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act.
In a recent case (DCIT vs. Religare Finvest Ltd) heard by ITAT Delhi, it was ruled that lessor is entitled to claim depreciation on leased assets under a finance lease agreement.
Explore the outcome of Ramabhai Kanjibhai Patel vs DCIT where the ITAT Surat negates penalty under Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(b) when the assessment gets completed under Section 143(3).
CAAR Mumbai rejects M/s. Solae Company India Private Limited’s application for advance ruling due to jurisdiction issues, as the company’s office is in Gurgaon, under CAAR Delhi’s jurisdiction, not Mumbai’s. The company had inaccurately used their logistics service provider’s address in Mumbai.
We find that Applicant M/S Uttar Pradesh Metro Rail Corporation Limited is receiver of the Goods/Services provided by the KESCO. In light of point (a) provided under Section 95 of CGST Act 2017, only supplier of the services can file Application for Advance Ruling. In this case the supplier of service is KESCO.
Mixing scent in raw unmanufactured tobacco dust by Pandey Traders changes its character to manufactured tobacco, classifiable under CTH 24039910 as “Chewing Tobacco”, per GST AAR Uttar Pradesh ruling.
Services provided by Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited to SUDA under PMAY-U qualify as activities related to functions entrusted to Panchayats and Municipalities, thus exempt from GST as per Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate).
Assessees must thoroughly discharge initial onus under section 68. Until assessee does so, AO is under no obligation to conduct further inquiries.
ITAT Ahmedabad in Sureshbhai Ashwinbhai Patel Vs ITO clarified that complete sale consideration from such a property cannot be attributed as capital gain of a single co-owner.